(2 of 4)
I came here as a Governor. I'd never served in the Congress. My exposure to foreign policy, as an adult at least, was largely through international economic measures. I also think, in fairness to our whole team, we were confronting a very different world than had previously been the case. When the past is sort of like the present, and you think the future is going to be like the present, then you can put a lot of smart people in, and it's almost like they're going in and putting on the same suit of clothes, you know? And we had to come in with a whole new wardrobe. So I think there is a greater level of confidence now too, because we're a little more comfortable with this time in which we live, with all its ups and downs.
When I came in, I knew there was a limit to how much I could get done. I wanted to have as much time as I could to get my economic program going, because I was afraid that unless we reversed our economic course, nothing I did in foreign policy would permit the U.S. to really succeed. So for the first eight months I was here, an enormous amount of my energy was devoted to what turned out to be a very important economic victory in the Congress.
TIME: Now, about this time four years ago, George Bush said that foreign policy was just more fun than domestic policy. Was he right?
Clinton: No, I wouldn't say that. But I have a different orientation. I like foreign policy a lot. I've found it very interesting, and I enjoy doing it. If "more fun" means you have more control, and you can do it with less interference and static in Congress, to that extent of course that's true.
The domestic-policy issues are still exhilarating and important to me. "Fun" is the wrong word, but ((domestic policy)) is gripping to me; it is terribly important. I don't get tired of those issues. When you're dealing with these domestic problems, the President is one of a zillion decision makers: not just Congress, but you've got people in the private sector and individuals in their own lives. They make up their minds; they go out and do things that you think are right or wrong or good or bad.
So foreign policy has a certain satisfaction when you can be active and you can achieve a result, and sometimes it's easier to see a beginning, a middle and an end. When you go out and start fighting crime, and you pass the crime bill, it's still up to people at the local level how they hire the police, who the police are, how well they're trained, whether the crime rate goes down. You're more like a catalyst, and you try to empower other people to do things. Whereas in foreign policy your actions are more self-contained.
TIME: Would it be fair to say that you now have a better idea of what Bush was talking about?
Clinton: Oh, I have a much better idea of what he was talking about. But I really am insistent on not giving up on either one, because if you slip the tracks one way or the other, not only will the presidency fail, but the country won't be well served. You know, the country will not permit a President to engage in foreign policy to the exclusion of dealing with the domestic problems. But the country might permit a President to engage in domestic problems to the exclusion of foreign policy, until some wheel runs off somewhere, and then it'll be obvious that that was an error as well.